Table 3 The three most common types of no-harm incidents and their most common potential contributing causes
From: Identifying no-harm incidents in home healthcare: a cohort study using trigger tool methodology
Types of no-harm incidents | Potential contributing causes | Number |
|---|---|---|
Fall without harm (n = 127, 40.6% of all no-harm incidents) | Nursing care – delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete | 66 |
Observation – delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete | 48 | |
Follow-up of care/treatment – delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete | 36 | |
Not apparent from record | 29 | |
Routines/guidelines – lacking, deficient, have not been observed | 25 | |
Collaboration/continuity – deficiencies within the unit | 23 | |
Treatment – delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete | 16 | |
Communication/information – deficiencies in relation to patient/relatives | 16 | |
Communication/information – deficiencies between different care providers | 16 | |
Deficiencies in medication management (n = 66, 21.1% of all no-harm incidents) | Treatment – delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete | 63 |
Performance of task – deficient | 46 | |
Medication – distribution – delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete | 46 | |
Routines/guidelines – lacking, deficient, have not been observed | 43 | |
Communication/information – deficiencies between different care providers | 31 | |
Follow-up of care/treatment– delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete | 25 | |
Moderate pain (n = 24, 7.7% of all no-harm incidents) | Treatment – delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete | 15 |
Nursing care – delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete | 10 | |
Diagnostics/examination – delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete | 7 | |
Medication – prescription – delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete | 7 | |
Follow-up of care/treatment– delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete | 7 | |
Observation – delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete | 7 |